I spent five years at Forbes writing about business and leadership, attracting nearly one million unique visitors to Forbes.com each month. While here, I assistant edited the annual World’s 100 Most Powerful Women package and helped launch and grow ForbesWoman.com. I've appeared on CBS, CNBC, MSNBC and E Entertainment and speak often at conferences and events on women's leadership topics. I graduated summa cum laude from New York University with degrees in journalism and sociology and was honored with a best in business award from the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW) in 2012. My work has appeared in Businessweek, Ladies’ Home Journal, The Aesthete and Acura Style. I live in New York City with my husband and can be found on Twitter @Jenna_Goudreau, Facebook, and Google+.

The States People Are Fleeing In 2013

Long-term shifts in the U.S. economy coupled with the recent recession means Americans are more likely to pack up and move for employment-related reasons. Although the total number of residential moves is down, new data shows a clear pattern of the states that people are fleeing the fastest.

Moving company United Van Lines released its 36th annual study of customer migration patterns, analyzing a total of 125,000 moves across the 48 continental states in 2012. The study provides an up-to-date, representative snapshot of overarching moving patterns in the U.S., and reveals a mass exodus from the Northeast.

At No. 1, New Jersey has the highest ratio of people moving out compared to those moving in. Of the 6,300 total moves tracked in the state last year, 62% were outbound.

“New Jersey has been suffering from deindustrialization for some time now, as manufacturing moved from the Northeast to the South and West,” says economist Michael Stoll, professor and chair of the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. “And because it’s tied to New York, the high housing costs may also be pushing people out.”

The economy has been a major push factor for residents in the Frost Belt, particularly those in hard-hit areas like Michigan. “They had a terrific excess of people as a result of the collapse of the economy,” says Stoll. Detroit, the state’s largest city, has the highest metropolitan unemployment rate in the U.S. At 20%, it more than doubles the national average.

At the same time, Stoll says local employment trends combined with high costs of living causes many displaced workers to look for greener pastures. New York City, for example, consistently ranks as one of the most expensive cities in the nation. If you’ve lost your job, shelling out the median $4,000 monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is likely no longer feasible or attractive.

The Northeast and Midwest also feature a comparatively high concentration of residents over 65, says Stoll, who tend to retire to states that are warmer and less expensive. That’s why southern and western states are some of the most popular places to move to. According to the study, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Arizona feature some of the highest ratios of people moving in.

Meanwhile, the most popular destination for relocation is Washington, D.C. “It’s a high-cost area,” says Stoll, “but it features good economic opportunities. It has a maturing high-tech sector and many Federal government jobs, which are more stable in recessions.” Furthermore, D.C. attracts highly educated professionals, and Stoll says college-educated young people between the ages of 18 to 35 are the most likely to move.

One big surprise from the study is Oregon, which is the second most popular state with 61% inbound migration. Although it’s not the typical temperate climate of a retirement spot, Stoll believes hipster city Portland may be attracting both older individuals and young people with its mix of economic growth, cutting edge urban planning and scenic landscape.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Wonderful cities Tapei and Hong Kong at least, but in terms of modern infrastructure they are relatively young and immature as compared to NJ which modernized in the early 20th century. Look at the history and compare how long they have had to maintain that modern infrastructure.

I was in Taipei for a month in 2009. A major distinction is the valuation of local and indigenous culture. Another is the very high density of people per square mile. In that regard Taipei is like Hong Kong – and important to emphasize – very different than the way most of people in the US live. Therefore I suggest we use caution in comparing the NJ or the US with these regions.

I would that while the local taxes may be low, Taipei and Hong Kong are part of larger nation states who are known to have strong commitments to socialistic economic values like universal health care for example. Taiwan despite its anti-communist history has a strong and activist government and a strong safety net – universal health care – for example and limits large scale business growth and monopolization of economic sectors, promoting small business development over larger conglomerates. So the total tax and government picture may be more complicated for these regions when you add the federal tax load in.

Getting back to local taxes right now you are correct, but give them a few years as they mature more like what we see in NJ and we may see a very different picture. However you may be right – that these regions are more efficient in their spending and provide more services per dollar than in NJ. But the reasons for this may be complex and for this reason the social sciences have emerged to make sure than assertions like the one you posit are carefully evaluated and any spurious connections are rooted out.

For example, if you grew in metro NY like me you might understand that the ethnic mix of the region sometimes leads to a political reality more like Italy than England. This old timely political patronage culture is a real challenge for the future of the region, because its just not an good way to ensure effective allocation of resources. I would add to that the idea that fundamentally government and society is broken because of how we prioritize the spending of money.

What kind of philosophy is going to enable us to truly consider less government spending while ensuring we have good infrastructure, well functioning urban cores, highly educated populations of citizens, and the sustainable management of social and ecological resources? This dilemma is evident in Arizona where the old failing modalities of 1950s US style modern Western thinking thinking still prevail. Millions are spent planning for cars and more cars, rather than considering that the unsustainability of highways and the overall cost of car culture is a major problem (Think Global Climate Change as possibly the primary challenge for our civilization period) that is threatening the viability of modern civilization.

Pound for pound with consideration to your example of the Asian City States, we will pay more taxes for less services in the US because of the immense inefficiencies for subsiding suburbia and car culture. This includes a long history of defunding and degrading mass transit and interstate bus and rail transit systems.

So lets uncloak the straw man arguments that do little for genuine explorations of these issues and which define the so called debates in Washington and the Media. The straw man is that government is bad and taxes are bad. This is the age old argument and it is stupid one and lets call it for what it is. We need government and we need people dedicated to the effective political governance and management of these systems. These types of debates and arguments only come up when societies not just governments get so big they become empires and they we revert to the notion that taxes and government are bad because the governance system is no longer human scale. But let us carefully consider why this is the case? The US/European/Western Empire is showing signs of strain and the Asians are more nimble. The problem is that when a society matures and grows large the social pressures towards corruption outweigh attempts to reign in the beast.

The situation with our government is not just about government, it is that our society has grown too much and too fast and is now outside of our control as citizens of a society that claims to be a democracy. The Greeks warned us of the evils of empire over 2000 years ago and lived it with the rise of Alexander the Great. We can see it again today, affecting all aspects of the society including and I would most of all in the corporate world. If we are serious about reforming the system and making it sustainable, we need to embrace a movement for a more mature discussion of the issues as planners, engineers, farmers, lawyers, politicians, movie stars, stockbrokers, laborers and dishwashers – people who truly care not just about themselves but of their society and their world. And this is what I am suggesting here.

nj also led the exodus league in 2010, before the military move to maryland. the tech sector has suffered because nj, with its tax and regulatory policies, has not proven to be an attractive environment for keeping tech jobs there and attracting enough tech startups. calif and ny also have terrible negatives for startups, but they’re offset by other advantages–advantages that nj doesn’t have.

A close read of the article shows that the state with the most in-migration is Oregon (at 61%) as the article erroneously counts Washington, DC as a state. Oregon has higher taxes than New Jersey at both the low end (5%) and at the top (11%), with only three brackets. Oregon’s top 11 percent personal income tax is now tied with Hawaii’s for the highest rate in the country. Because its capital gains tax rate is linked to the income tax, Oregon’s tax on investment gains is also the nation’s highest. It also has pretty high property taxes and no homestead exemption. For these reasons, I would say you may wish to reevaluate your thinking about taxes being a primary driver when people consider moving from one place to another.

As you may know, Oregon is a blue state and the City of Portland is about as progressive as it gets. Oregon is not known as a “business friendly state”, is not a “Right to Work” state, and the labor force is about 18% unionized. As for regulations I can’t compare Oregon to New Jersey, but I know that businesses in the entire Portland metro area (three counties and 25 cities) are required to recycle all paper, cardboard, plastic containers, cans, bottles and metal. And residents of Portland single family homes are expected to recycle all of the above plus food scraps and yard trimmings and thus receive trash pickup only once every two weeks.

The vast majority of newcomers move into the Portland metro area, which is known for a very high quality of life. As the article states, the City of Portland has several things going for it that attract people to move there. But low taxes is not one of them.

I agree with some of the other commentators that the United Van Lines study does not provide enough data to determine why people moved, and statements based on this data are pure speculation.

Calif has a higher top rate than Oregon — 13.3%, I believe — and I think many of the people arriving in Oregon are coming from Calif. If NJ were next to Calif, it would probably be enjoying net immigration, too. For decades NJ enjoyed a huge influx of residents from NY, which has always had higher taxes. NJ didn’t get a sales tax until the mid-60s and didn’t get an income tax until the late 70s. Now NJ doesn’t get so many New Yorkers. They skip right down to Virginia, NC and other points south. Of course there are reasons beyond taxes for people moving. People in congested NYC were looking for suburban space in NJ. But states and countries with lower taxes and entrepreneur-friendly climates tend, on average, to grow faster, create more jobs and attract more new residents.

I got some faulty information about the top national rate and Oregon’s brackets (which are five). But you inspired me to do a little research.

In 2012 (the year of the migration study), California’s top rate was 12.3% but this applied to income over $1 million. If you look at the brackets, taxes for the majority of people are lower in California. Using married filing jointly for comparison, California taxes the first $35 k at 2%, Oregon taxes your first $35 k at 7 and 9%. A couple making $95 k in California is in the fifth bracket and pays 8% on income over $77k. A couple making $95 k in Oregon is in the third tax bracket and pays 9% on income over $16 k!!! A couple making $500 k a year in Oregon pays 10.8% on income between $250 k and $500 k. In California, the same couple pays 9.3% on income between $98 k and $500 k and rates of 2,4,6% on the amounts under $98 k. Oregon’s top rate of 11% applies to incomes over $500 k, while Californians only pay a top rate of 10.3 up to $600 k. After $600 k, they pay 11.3% up to $1 million. So Oregon only begins to look attractive on a tax basis to California couples making well in excess of $600 k (which is California’s eighth tax bracket). They would be wise to speak to a tax consultant, because those five very low tax brackets (compared to Oregon’s) really add up to a large savings. (All figures 2012).

While some couples making in excess of $1 million might find Oregon a better deal, I think we can agree that when speaking about mass migration the vast majority of people who move are not in that category. Also, if Californians are moving to the Portland metro to save tax dollars, why not move four more miles over the river to Washington state which has no income tax?

I do agree on your point that when NJ had very low rates compared to NY, that could spur a lot of migration. You can effectively live in one and work in the other. Not so for Portland metro and California.

John, it’s not just retirees moving across the border. So do many high income and high net worth individuals employed by NJ companies. The CEO of my employer lives in PA, which saves both him and the company money. It’s a win-win.

“Elderly people leaving a state is generally a beneficial thing for most states generally because gov’t expenses for seniors on a per capita basis are almost always the highest of any any group & often by a wide margin.”

Unbelievable! This must be an indication of your radical progressive idealogy. It certainly doesnt comport with any traditional, Christian-based approach to the sociology of any American community that Im aware of… Be that as it may, just dont come down South with any of your outrageous notions. We revere our elder citizens as a community resource and as anchors to a traditional past that buffers your eagerness for an Orwellian future.

No thanks for either state, I will stay in the ozarks,mo with a paid for 3/2 on 11 acres with $367/yr property tax, lower income tax, lower crime, much lower utility and housing costs, No water bill(well) job that pays better then anything I have ever made in CA. No more blue high cost states for me.

just before I looked at the check 4 $4789, I be certain that…my… sister woz realie making money in their spare time on there computar.. there neighbour has done this 4 only twenty one months and resently paid the dept on their home and bought a great volvo. I went here, ……. BIT40.ℂOℳ